Skip to main content

In just under 200 pages, Krauss walks us through a hundred years of mind-bending breakthroughs in astrophysics, which have led scientists to the inescapable conclusion that our universe sprang out of nothing — "without design, intent or purpose" — and is destined to return to that bleak, cold, dark space.

A professor at Arizona State University, Krauss clearly relishes his iconoclastic role, gleefully demolishing all theories of creation that require a creator — that is, most religions. In the early 2000s, when he was teaching physics at Case Western Reserve University, he very publicly took on creationists in a fight over the science curriculum in Ohio public schools.

But one has to hope that this book won't appeal only to the partisans of the culture wars — it's just too good and interesting for that. Krauss is genuinely in awe of the "wondrously strange" nature of our physical world, and his enthusiasm is infectious.

Here he is explaining how every atom in our bodies was forged billions of years ago in the nuclear furnaces of exploding stars: "We are all, literally, star children, and our bodies made of stardust." The book bursts with such poetic conceits.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/physicis...thing-160221712.html

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

krauss is another Sagan. one can write anything in a book with a catchy title. Krauss is best observed in a forum of other scientists. He has no proof of his claims and they are not demonstrable.

 

             i know Krauss well and have listened to his lectures and panel discussions.  he is also one of dawkins butt lickers. he is one of the lying scientists that you hear me complain about.

 

he is a butthole and has a very hostile attitude against creationists. 

 

          a very good sign of an idiot scientist is one who feels compelled to appear as an athiest rather than a scientist.

Which really is more reasonable to assume is likely?

 

That creation was the result of a determined                      

process set about by a Deity/Creator who                          

brought about life, planets, space and all we       

see and are in a way that is beyond human                        

understanding or beyond our limited minds                        

ability to comprehend or reproduce.                                   

 

 {GOD} ----> Creation from an inconceivable and mysterious process  from a undefinable and all powerful source beyond human understanding that because of His very nature we just call Him God with the understanding  that God has no sex, form or human definition but rather our faith that it is possible such a power exist without having to totally define and understand/comprehend i

 

or

 

That everything living and non-living  

 traces it's existance to a single atom/ 

 element that somehow was a part of

an unprecedented release and creation

 of energy creating objects of mass out of NOTHING

 

{Nothing (Absence of everything)} ----> Yields all matter, creation, life and space 

 

Science and those who refuse to consider the possibility of God must manufacture or explain the creation of everything in terms that cannot possibly originate from an intelligent or source/power we call or refer to as a deity/God.  Unless someone actually knows, firsthand, 100%, without any doubt,  of exactly how the Universe, space, stars, planets, etc came into existence and from what, when and where ... then they are just expressing their own belief, a measure of faith.  Since they do not believe there is any possibility of God then their faith rest in another flawed, limited, human and some human's opinion of how things became as they are.  That is the case unless the person has unquestionable first hand knowledge and experience to prove their theories and beliefs.   

 

Also if a person rejects any possibility of God and declares that God does not exist then they should have some knowledge or verifiable reason to reinforce that belief.  If that proof or evidence is that God doesn't manifest Himself unto them then the question presents itself as to what is so significant about them that would justify God presenting Himself unto them for proof?  Ultimately, if a person is honest with themselves then they should admit that it is really impossible for them to prove that God doesn't exist.  While they can, and do, say that there is no proof that God does exist, if they are honest, then they should acknowledge the reverse is also true.  The point is that whether a person chooses to believe in God or reject God they are doing so out of faith alone, faith supported by sufficient proof acceptable to them alone.    

 

What you basically have with many who take such staunch stands opposed to God do so blindly and in order to keep from having to confront the questions and evidences of potential existence  of God's being they then have to turn a blind eye toward the possible and blindly devote their entire faith in the beliefs of yet another flawed and limited human and hypothesizes that eliminate any possibility of an intelligent and powerful living Creator.  

 

Christians/Believers on the other hand, while they to can be said to place their faith in God account of another person's persuasive words and convincing, say many times that their Faith rest upon a very personal, real and intimate communication and contact from God's Holy Spirit in a most demonstrative way that eliminates all personal doubt.  While this is a very subjective statement on behalf of the believer and subject to interpretation and suspicion by anyone hearing them, there is no proof or ability to prove that what they say is incorrect and false.  Therefore a believer's faith very possibly can be justified by supernatural and divine means.  

 

The real question is WHO are you placing your personal faith in and why?   So much energy is being expended in claiming what so many say is factual is actually a delusion and not real at all without ever taking the time to seriously question if something may be there to justify so many having identical beliefs and faith in a divine, intelligent God/Deity.  While a person can doubt what so many believers say is true they have no way to prove their doubts are legitimate and based in reality.  Conversely Those who claim to know/experience God say that those who don't know God can know and experience God yet.  It is our assertion that anyone can know/experience God but that no one can comprehend or conceive of who, or what, God is nor God's power or process of bringing about Creation.

 

As for myself I proudly proclaim I put my faith in God.

Last edited by gbrk

The Star In You

  • By Peter Tyson
  • Posted 12.02.10
  • NOVA scienceNOW

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/star-in-you.html

 

 

Here's an amazing fact for your next cocktail party: Every single atom in your body—the calcium in your bones, the carbon in your genes, the iron in your blood, the gold in your filling—was created in a star billions of years ago. All except atoms of hydrogen and one or two of the next lightest elements. They were formed even earlier, shortly after the Big Bang began 13.7 billion years ago.

Back to the subject post. Krauss probably did, to your satisfaction, explain the facts of the universe from beginning to an end in 200 pages. That is a preposterous position for anyone to take. The state of the universe is unexplained. Krauss is  an obnoxious atheist and nothing more. I recommend the 6k package w/instructions for you.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

The Star In You

  • By Peter Tyson
  • Posted 12.02.10
  • NOVA scienceNOW

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/star-in-you.html

 

 

Here's an amazing fact for your next cocktail party: Every single atom in your body—the calcium in your bones, the carbon in your genes, the iron in your blood, the gold in your filling—was created in a star billions of years ago. All except atoms of hydrogen and one or two of the next lightest elements. They were formed even earlier, shortly after the Big Bang began 13.7 billion years ago.

IF it is a FACT then there should be undeniable, unquestionable proof to verify it as factual.  Where is that proof?  What is that Proof and who is justified to declare it as verifiable proof?  If factual then there should be unquestionable ability to demonstrate it as such and be such that it can be reproduced.

 

So is it a FACT or is it a hypothesis or someone's theory and if a theory what gives it any more weight than any other theory?   

Tyson is one of my favirites but he does entertain a lot for the benefit of the untrained. I don’t believe he made such a claim because it is wrong in so many ways if he said it but it’s good enough for dumbell best to take it and run wiith it.

    The athiest will misunderstand and make idiots out of themselves. For such a model to be real only one star would have  developed first and alone then divided like cells containing all known elements.

Absurd.

Originally Posted by lexum:

        krauss is another Sagan. one can write anything in a book with a catchy title. Krauss is best observed in a forum of other scientists. He has no proof of his claims and they are not demonstrable.



 

             i know Krauss well and have listened to his lectures and panel discussions.  he is also one of dawkins butt lickers. he is one of the lying scientists that you hear me complain about.

 

he is a butthole and has a very hostile attitude against creationists. 

 

          a very good sign of an idiot scientist is one who feels compelled to appear as an athiest rather than a scientist.

---------------
That's some fowl language for someone who claims to be a Christian. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Originally Posted by Volkov:
Originally Posted by lexum:

        krauss is another Sagan. one can write anything in a book with a catchy title. Krauss is best observed in a forum of other scientists. He has no proof of his claims and they are not demonstrable.

 

             i know Krauss well and have listened to his lectures and panel discussions.  he is also one of dawkins butt lickers. he is one of the lying scientists that you hear me complain about.

 

he is a butthole and has a very hostile attitude against creationists. 

 

          a very good sign of an idiot scientist is one who feels compelled to appear as an athiest rather than a scientist.

---------------
That's some fowl language for someone who claims to be a Christian. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

=================================

uhh, volly, this "FOWL" language you speak of; do you mean you talk to birds

 

    i gues so since you live in the cookoo nest

Religious Faith is simply faith that falls in areas that are of a Religious nature.  The "Basis" of many Christian's Faith is said, by the very Christians, to be God Himself via God's Holy Spirit's Conviction.  That experience/evidence is real and unquestionable to each Christian who has it.  


Non-Believers, Secularist, Atheist and the like reject this basis because it is evidence or an experience that they didn't have and experience therefore it cannot be true because if it was then it would have happened to them regardless of their adamant disbelief and rejection of God.  This refusal to accept Personal Testimony is written off and rejected and justified, in their minds, as saying that the Christian is deluded or deceiving themselves.  


There is no consideration allowed, because so many report the same experience and report the same, that there might be something behind the diverse testimonies to God.  There is such a total rejection of God or any possibly of God that any theory or hypothesis that involves some intelligent basis or source to Creation and LIfe is also totally rejected outright giving no room for possibility and therefore the only theories or hypothesis that are allowed are those which in their scope reject God.  The allegiance given to these "Godless" theories is absolute and unquestionable in the minds of those non-believers or atheist.  


Faith, by its very definition and nature is belief and acceptance in that which cannot be demonstrated and reproduced or verified, It is reliance upon possibility and not eliminating, beforehand, The the Christian faith is no more faith because the presence of God's Holy Spirit is verification that not only God exist but that God resides within the Christian's own body alongside and with the person's inner spirit.  It is though referred to as faith because it is not verifiable to third parties or others based upon being able to demonstrate or show it by scientific principals.  


While creation, matter, planets, life, and products of creation are subject to and subject to Scientific testing and evaluation the Creator, Source, God does not have to be or is required to conform to that which is created.  In fact I, and many other Christians, state that God is Spirit and outside of the realm of the physical that can be tested by human/scientific and physical standards.  It is also the testimony and assertion, by numbers of Christians and believers, that God is real and beyond any human understanding or even the ability of humans to comprehend what, who, or where God is.  With all this testimony and statements that God falls outside of the physical realm and beyond that which Science can test there is still no possibility given, by many scientist and atheist, non-believers that such an entity or deity can exist there is instead blind allegiance to theories that state dogmatically that there is no God, no Deity simply because God cannot be tested, touched or observed.  Christians and believers say that God is proved by the results of God's actions through creation and in creation and based upon God's personal interaction and  change upon various and diverse believers lives.  Again this is rejected by secularist/atheist/science because in order to exist it must be able to be touched, seen, observable and tested by physical means and methods to be real.  Now who is narrow-minded?

Originally Posted by lexum:

      
Originally Posted by Volkov:
Originally Posted by lexum:

        krauss is another Sagan. one can write anything in a book with a catchy title. Krauss is best observed in a forum of other scientists. He has no proof of his claims and they are not demonstrable.

 

             i know Krauss well and have listened to his lectures and panel discussions.  he is also one of dawkins butt lickers. he is one of the lying scientists that you hear me complain about.

 

he is a butthole and has a very hostile attitude against creationists. 

 

          a very good sign of an idiot scientist is one who feels compelled to appear as an athiest rather than a scientist.

---------------
That's some fowl language for someone who claims to be a Christian. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

=================================

uhh, volly, this "FOWL" language you speak of; do you mean you talk to birds

 

    i gues so since you live in the cookoo nest

-----------
Great way to change the subject by focusing on a spelling error instead of having to face up to that nasty mouth you got. You of all people pointing out spelling errors is laughable. No matter how many religious posts you reply to it doesn't make you a Christian.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. 

quote:   Originally Posted by Jennifer Bestworking:

Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.    Richard Dawkins


 
John 3:3, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John 14:6, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." 

John 3:12,  "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"    Jesus Christ


PREACH_DARWIN_Outline

Attachments

Images (1)
  • PREACH_DARWIN_Outline

Which really is more reasonable to assume is likely?

 

What is most likely, gb, is that the natural Universe had a natural beginning, and is that it is not due to supernatural intervention.

 

Every other natural phenomenon is now known to be the result of natural causes, even though they were once all the bailiwick of the gods.  That is because we were less well educated than we are now.

 

It should be beneath any reasonable faith, and indeed is, to push the gods farther and farther into the creases in our understanding.  God's only domain these days is the ignorance upon which our human minds have not yet shown the light of science.  No longer is thunder attributed to Thor.  No longer are rainbows god's promise not to murder us again.  No longer are diseases the result of demons.

 

You take a huge risk when you substitute ignorance for god.  What happens when we erase the ignorance and replace it with knowledge?  Your god becomes less and less significant, does he not?

If he does not, then you do.  There are plenty of people who dishonestly ignore the scientific explanation for Earthly life.  They are called "Creationists" and are losers for a lost cause.  Worse yet, perhaps by your own thinking, they drag your religion through steaming, stinking piles of cowpies in their insistence that superstition trumps sound knowledge.  Whether you're a Creationists or just a moderate Christian, you should resent the deliberate and dishonest dissembling of Creationism.  It lessens and reduces your religion in a serious and fatal way.

 

The cause of the Universe is a scientific question, as is the diversity and creation of life.  Do yourself and your faith a favor and let science take its course, unhindered by any Medieval presumptions such as Creationism or a timeless, substanceless god.  If you do not, eventually you will lose as much credibility for yourself and your religion as the Creationists have already cost you, perhaps more.

 

DF

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Which really is more reasonable to assume is likely?

 

What is most likely, gb, is that the natural Universe had a natural beginning, and is that it is not due to supernatural intervention.

 

Every other natural phenomenon is now known to be the result of natural causes, even though they were once all the bailiwick of the gods.  That is because we were less well educated than we are now.

 

It should be beneath any reasonable faith, and indeed is, to push the gods farther and farther into the creases in our understanding.  God's only domain these days is the ignorance upon which our human minds have not yet shown the light of science.  No longer is thunder attributed to Thor.  No longer are rainbows god's promise not to murder us again.  No longer are diseases the result of demons.

 

You take a huge risk when you substitute ignorance for god.  What happens when we erase the ignorance and replace it with knowledge?  Your god becomes less and less significant, does he not?

If he does not, then you do.  There are plenty of people who dishonestly ignore the scientific explanation for Earthly life.  They are called "Creationists" and are losers for a lost cause.  Worse yet, perhaps by your own thinking, they drag your religion through steaming, stinking piles of cowpies in their insistence that superstition trumps sound knowledge.  Whether you're a Creationists or just a moderate Christian, you should resent the deliberate and dishonest dissembling of Creationism.  It lessens and reduces your religion in a serious and fatal way.

 

The cause of the Universe is a scientific question, as is the diversity and creation of life.  Do yourself and your faith a favor and let science take its course, unhindered by any Medieval presumptions such as Creationism or a timeless, substanceless god.  If you do not, eventually you will lose as much credibility for yourself and your religion as the Creationists have already cost you, perhaps more.

 

DF

======================================

DeepFat, tell us; what was natural at the beginning?

   Your post fell apart with the first¶

I see you are non-the-wiser. You insist on being a numb-skull.

    GBRK is your intellectual superior. Show him respect.

Last edited by lexum
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

Tut, tut. A. Robustus is always quick to remind us that abiogenesis is not evolution. Can't anyone make up their mind?

==
FV,
Unless the above statement was a cheeky joke, I suggest that scientific illiteracy (there is a cure) is the cause of your continuing confusion. Krauss, an astrophysicist, is writing about the field of cosmology. The AP article's simple use of the word "evolve" is akin to "develop" and is unrelated to the scientific theory of Evolution, which does not encompass abiogenesis, and resides in the field of biology.

For future reference, remember that the Big Bang theory resides in the field of cosmology. The concept of abiogenesis (and it's resulting hypotheses) and the scientific theory of Evolution, reside in the field of biology.

"For future reference, remember that the Big Bang theory resides in the field of cosmology. The concept of abiogenesis (and it's resulting hypotheses) and the scientific theory of Evolution, reside in the field of biology"[adoit the lesser]

=============================

what a truly dumb statement adot but true. Rather than "cosmology" you might suggest it resides in the minds of present day sheepherders. i'm quite sure most biologist want nothing to do with the bigbang invention. It is too bad the real science of biology has to live with such in it's neighborhood

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Which really is more reasonable to assume is likely?

 

What is most likely, gb, is that the natural Universe had a natural beginning, and is that it is not due to supernatural intervention.

 

Likely???  Natural beginning??   Just what would be natural about the "Big Bang" if that is the way everything matter, life, non-life, began from absolutely nothing?  If one says well it wasn't really nothing it was energy, a vapor etc then where did that come from?  The ONLY way you can get everything from something other than absolutely nothing would require you to define where that entity originated or came from.  Again what is "natural" about that?   


Also NSNS where is, and how strong, is the evidence to demonstrate or prove that a supernatural intervention was not responsible? 

 

Every other natural phenomenon is now known to be the result of natural causes, even though they were once all the bailiwick of the gods.  That is because we were less well educated than we are now.    


Again what IS natural about something from nothing, LIving from the nonliving and all this just happening by happenstance.  You suggest we know better now because we are more educated today.  Call it educated if you want but following through and expansion of an incorrect theory or hypothesis only exacerbates the error.  Many of the theories and hypothesis start from a bias that there is no God and cannot be a deity so they are skewed from the onset and greatly restrict what is allowed to be considered and tested.  When you eliminate an intelligent source from any consideration or chance then you are left with explaining the unexplainable.  You may call it natural but again what is natural about everything exponential growth from absolutely nothing?

 

It should be beneath any reasonable faith, and indeed is, to push the gods farther and farther into the creases in our understanding.  God's only domain these days is the ignorance upon which our human minds have not yet shown the light of science.  No longer is thunder attributed to Thor.  No longer are rainbows god's promise not to murder us again.  No longer are diseases the result of demons.

 

My suggestion is that the only misunderstanding or lack of knowledge comes from attributing creation and everything to gods rather than The GOD, Creator, Deity, Spirit source.

 

You take a huge risk when you substitute ignorance for god.  What happens when we erase the ignorance and replace it with knowledge?  Your god becomes less and less significant, does he not?

 

Ignorance is defined as lack of information and/or knowledge.  No one can say dogmatically with all assurance how creation (everything) came into being from the beginning or what the source was with all assurance being able to duplicate it or reproduce it over again.  Even Creationist do not know the process of creation they just rely upon "FAITH" that what all became and is was from a divine (GOD) source by a method and process which is beyond their ability to comprehend or understand for they do not have to know or understand it.  There is no problem with scientist or people striving to understand where we came from and why but ultimately we should be ready to admit that there exist things beyond our understanding or ability to define.  It is not creationist that, through bias, rule out any possibility beforehand but when you refuse to consider God or a deity or an intelligent source as a part of the equation then you will always inject error and a lack of information into the equation which is ignorance in itself. 

 

If he does not, then you do.  There are plenty of people who dishonestly ignore the scientific explanation for Earthly life.  They are called "Creationists" and are losers for a lost cause.  Worse yet, perhaps by your own thinking, they drag your religion through steaming, stinking piles of cowpies in their insistence that superstition trumps sound knowledge.  Whether you're a Creationists or just a moderate Christian, you should resent the deliberate and dishonest dissembling of Creationism.  It lessens and reduces your religion in a serious and fatal way.

 

Dishonest?  Who is it that refuses to even consider or add the possibility or potential of a deity or supernatural source?  There is no definite proof and evidence of the absence or nonexistence of God yet your theories, hypothesis and the like exclude any pretense of a possibility of God or Intelligent Source and teach it dogmatically as if you could prove it as well as disqualifying any scientist who attempts to consider an intelligent source/deity.  Refusing to even allow Creation by God or an Intelligent source from being taught as a competing theory wrongly using the First Amendment to justify it.   Now who is being dishonest?

 

The cause of the Universe is a scientific question, as is the diversity and creation of life.  Do yourself and your faith a favor and let science take its course, unhindered by any Medieval presumptions such as Creationism or a timeless, substanceless god.  If you do not, eventually you will lose as much credibility for yourself and your religion as the Creationists have already cost you, perhaps more.

 

DF

All any intelligent student, prior student, has to do is evaluate what is taught and what is NOT allowed to be taught in order to arouse suspicion.  Why would there be such staunch objections to allowing consideration of an intelligent source/origin as being considered in creation?  When there is no evidence or possibility of proof against the existence of God or an intelligent source/origin yet only one theory or side can be taught?   What is the threat?  No one is saying that one deity must be taught or which God is credited yet it is impossible to teach creation, as a competing theory to evolution.  Students are taught evolution and the Big Bang as if the are hard facts that are unquestionable yet there is still no reason or intelligent explanation how you get something so complex and complicated from absolutely NOTHING.   The realm of Science or Science itself is a very BIASED field that eliminates any potential conflicting theories or hypothesis that happens to include or consider the possibility of an intelligent source be it a deity, God, or some other Intelligent origin.  Again who is being dishonest?   Who deserves to lose credibility and who is attempting to sway opinions?    If Creation by God or a deity is absolutely not possible as a source or cause then WHERE is your Dogmatic proof and evidence of the non-existence of God.  You speak, and you teach on here as if there is no possibility of God so what evidence and principals do you base this assumption on?  Where and what is your convincing evidence?

Originally Posted by gbrk:
 

...All any intelligent student, prior student, has to do is evaluate what is taught and what is NOT allowed to be taught in order to arouse suspicion.  Why would there be such staunch objections to allowing consideration of an intelligent source/origin as being considered in creation?..

==
Science teaches only what is real. There is no scientific evidence for any kind of intelligent creation/design. End of story. That's why it doesn't belong in science class. It's not a threat. It's not in competition. It's not even a legitimate consideration because ancient myths belong in a different subject matter all together, like perhaps comparative religion, for example. The Hindus believe that before our creation, Vishnu was lying on an ocean of milk on top of the serpent Sesha. Then a lotus sprung from Vishnu's naval which contained the god Brahma. They believe it was Brahma that created all living beings, the universe and the other gods & demigods. The Christian creation myth only competes with the many other creation myths, and in this country, each religion can rightly and freely teach their myths in their buildings of worship and at home on a regular basis, until their hearts are content. A science classroom at a public (government) school is not the proper nor legal place to present baseless myths as an alternative to demonstrable reality.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:
Originally Posted by gbrk:
 

...All any intelligent student, prior student, has to do is evaluate what is taught and what is NOT allowed to be taught in order to arouse suspicion.  Why would there be such staunch objections to allowing consideration of an intelligent source/origin as being considered in creation?..

==
Science teaches only what is real.  {Much of what you are calling REAL is actually just OPINION, THEORY and HYPOTHESIS and not fact or real as you say.}  There is no scientific evidence for any kind of intelligent creation/design. End of story. That's why it doesn't belong in science class.

 

Nor is there any scientific evidence for the Big Bang.   Nor is there any Scientific evidence that disproves creation/design!  They are all theories and hypothesis on various persons parts.  Those who chose to believe in a certain theory or hypothesis then is a follower of the one who first comes up with that particular thought/theory.   Because there is no evidence (Scientific or other) to disprove creation/design then the total rejection of it as a POSSIBILITY is more a function of Personal BIAS than anything scientific or otherwise.  To prohibit the teaching of other valid and reasonable theories is simply arrogance based in BIAS.  It is imposing your beliefs and opinions on another.  It is essentially the same thing that non-believers rail against believers saying Christianity and the Church did for centuries, controlling the arena of ideas and thought.  Now it's atheist and non-believers and those opposed to God that are excluding any other theory or possibility only now it's acceptable (to you and those) because it happens to be the personal bias you have.  Arrogance to the extreme is in play here that you and others would declare other possibilities invalid even though you cannot disprove them with any scientific evidence.   Without that evidence it's just your belief and opinion yet you feel justified in denying others to compete on a level playing field so you and they squelch those ideas/opinions/teachings and those who advocate such.. 

 

It's not a threat. It's not in competition. It's not even a legitimate consideration because ancient myths belong in a different subject matter all together, like perhaps comparative religion, for example. The Hindus believe that before our creation, Vishnu was lying on an ocean of milk on top of the serpent Sesha. Then a lotus sprung from Vishnu's naval which contained the god Brahma. They believe it was Brahma that created all living beings, the universe and the other gods & demigods. The Christian creation myth only competes with the many other creation myths, and in this country, each religion can rightly and freely teach their myths in their buildings of worship and at home on a regular basis, until their hearts are content. A science classroom at a public (government) school is not the proper nor legal place to present baseless myths as an alternative to demonstrable reality.

So where and what is your PROOF and EVIDENCE that God does not exist and that there is no possibility that God is/was the creator?  Not opinion but EVIDENCE and PROOF?  

Harrrrumpf harrrrumph sez DEEPFAT “

What is most likely, gb, is that the natural Universe had a natural beginning, and is that it is not due to supernatural intervention”

    "A natchul beginning there gb harrrumph  yoo no’s a nachul beginning."

""It’s nachul Kinkfish.

  Uhh DF whachoo mean it’s hachul?????

“well err uh uh it’s jes nachul”

“well I gues ah seez now it was all-a-long nachul bef’o ituz nachul “

"Yo gots it now kingfish"

Originally Posted by lexum:

       Harrrrumpf harrrrumph sez DEEPFAT “
What is most likely, gb, is that the natural Universe had a natural beginning, and is that it is not due to supernatural intervention”
    "A natchul beginning there gb harrrumph  yoo no’s a nachul beginning."
""It’s nachul Kinkfish.
  Uhh DF whachoo mean it’s hachul?????
“well err uh uh it’s jes nachul”
“well I gues ah seez now it was all-a-long nachul bef’o ituz nachul “
"Yo gots it now kingfish"

-----------------
I see you speak fluent idiot. I always suspected as much.

Gb I’m shocked by the vulgarity of deep’s knowledge of science.

Suppose some school child were to read of his adulterous affair with ignorance.

“Abstract.

 

We show the existence of spatially homogeneous but anisotropic

cosmological models whose cosmic microwave background temperature is exactly

isotropic at one instant of time but whose rate of expansion is highly anisotropic.

The existence of these models shows that the observation of a highly isotropic

cosmic microwave background temperature cannot alone be used to infer that the

universe is close to a Friedmann-Lemaitre model.

…………….

of cosmological models, they cannot be used to conclude that the physical universe is

close to an FL model. [Friedmann-Lemaitre]

     

In this Letter we answer this question in the negative. In particular we show that

for a given time

to, there are spatially homogeneous cosmological models such that at

t

 

o the CMB temperature is measured to be isotropic by all fundamental observers, even

though the overall expansion of the universe is highly anisotropic at

to.”

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-q...f/9912/9912001v1.pdf

 

    deep you better hold on tight to the Cosmic Microwave Background Theory

g,
Reality is everything that actually exists. We know what is real because we have demonstrable facts that predict and prove repeatedly (regardless of who's making the inquiry) that something is indeed part of the real world. There is no personal opinion involved. The only bias is toward real answers and real explanations to phenomena. The only good reason to ever believe that something exists is if there's real evidence that it actually does.

To believe that a lotus really grew from Vishnu's bellybutton while he was reclining on a big snake on top of a milk ocean, and that there was a god inside the flower who created the universe - requires evidence and proof. This explanation for the creation of the universe is not real because there is no evidence or proof for it. On this I'm sure we agree. The burden of proof for the reality of this extraordinary creation explanation falls on the ones who advocate for it's acceptance. It's not my burden, nor yours to disprove it. Regardless, unless proven true the lotus myth of creation is best taught in mythology class, along with Thor's hammer and Noah's arc.

The playing field is level. The rules are just toward all ideas. Every hypothesis is welcome to compete. Christian myths, among others, have been presented and rejected. Unfortunately for theists of every kind, myths don't have enough substance to merit perpetual consideration. The real world has moved on from simple ancient make-believe.

 

The myth of creation is not a real alternative to the science of biology. The myth of astrology is not a real alternative to the science of astronomy. The myth of alchemy is not a real alternative to the science of chemistry. The myth of phrenology is not a real alternative to the science of psychology, and so on. None of these baseless myths belong in real science classes because they're not real science. You are free to teach whatever you want in your church or at home, but what's taught in school under "science" needs to reflect reality, regardless if it conflicts with your favorite myth.

If you still feel indignant about your misinformed opinions, answer this: So where and what is your PROOF and EVIDENCE that Vishnu does not exist and that there is no possibility that Brahma is/was the creator?  Not opinion but EVIDENCE and PROOF?

For one A Rob you produced zero evidence or proof in the non-existence of God so you failed to meet the challenge.  You end by seemingly turning the tables challenging me to prove that Vishnu does not exist.  An excellent attempt at distraction and diverting the question and topic because of your inability to answer.  It is not I who goes around claiming Vishnu does not exist as Atheist are claiming no God exist therefore how is there any correlation in an attempt to get me to answer that question which has no relevance.  If anything Vishnu should challenge the non-believer and Atheist to question their own baseless stance that no God exist.  Here you have a major god in Hinduism  so you have yet another great number of people who seek and have a thirst and hunger for finding and knowing God.  

 

It is the Atheist who blatantly state there is no God then responds to anyone who claims otherwise or raises the possibility otherwise as if they are anything but deft and consider them devoid of intelligent understanding or idiots or just plain dumb.  If there is such a profound unquestionable source of absolute knowledge disproving God then surely there is ample and sufficient evidence to reinforce that assertion so (again) where and what is it?  Reality is subjective based upon ones own exposures and is by no means sufficient evidence or proof that something exist or does not exist.  There are many species under the sea that man has no knowledge or comprehension of they are not a part of reality yet never the less they exist.  There are planets that have never been spotted or envisioned in galaxies that remain undiscovered or unidentified and are not a part of reality but never the less exist so reality is no basis for the existence or non-existence of anything.

 

Simply put how do YOU know God doesn't exist???  What has convinced you of this, what you consider as a fact?  That remains the unanswered question.

g,
Trying to prove a negative is an illogical task, which is why I gave your question back to you but with a different mythical/cultural reference as an example. It's more relevant to your argument than you realize. In addition, I explained that the burden of proof does not fall on the denier, but on the individual making a claim of positive existence. For example, I happen to know that there's an undetectable dragon that lives in your house. Prove me wrong. (If you can't - then it must be true, right?)

Also understand that just because your favorite myth can't be entirely disproven doesn't mean that it deserves equal respect or consideration with what is actually real and provable. Think about it. If not proving that something doesn't exist were any kind of useful standard then my personal (and disprovable) belief that an invisible teapot is orbiting the Sun somewhere between Earth and Mars would have to be taught as scientifically plausible in the classroom, which is absurd. Yet it's no more absurd that teaching creation myths as plausible science.

Lastly, reality is objective (that's how we know something is Real) and reality doesn't just consist of things we already know about or can detect. It also includes things that we don't know about yet. However, that doesn't mean that we should just believe in anything that anyone can possibly conjure up in their imagination. Like a friend of mine said today, being open minded is great, but not so much that your brain falls out! To me, your god and all the other gods ever, reside on the same shelf as leprechauns, fairies, minotaurs, griffons & mermaids. Nice but not real.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×